Justin Gimelstob Says That Andy Murray is Not Elite Player.......

Until Murray can hit a forehand down the line? I was watching Tennis Channel's Top matches for 2012. Quote Gimel-snob commenting on the US Open finals match, "Murray needs to learn how to hit the forehand pass down the line in order to be an Elite player." Doesn't Gimel-SNOB understand that Olympic Champions are the elite players? .... Gimel-SNOB has his nose up in the air so much of he time that he cannot look down at Murray's footwork while he plays the game of tennis. His movement and split-step as his opponent strikes the ball is perfect or otherwise....ELITE!!! Murray has the Singles Gold Medal that many other elite players do not.... Gimel-SNOB needs to stick to some pregame notes when commentating or maybe Gimel-SNOB isn't SMART enough to prepare some prematch notes and we have to listen to this garbage!

Wow, didn't Justin Gimelstob once make it to the second round of the US Open or something? There's nothing worse than second rate ex-players, Wally Masur is another one, who reckon they know the game better than the actual elite players and second guess every move they make as if they could ever have got near that level themselves. It's funny that guys like McEnroe and Courier don't tend to do this kind of thing and they were pretty elite in their day.

Well, Gimelstob is wrong in his comment about Murray's eliteness but if Murray could hit a down the line forehand as well as anyone else in the top 8 he'd be a much harder player to beat. He may have even picked up a few more scalps of the top players on the big stages too.

But that's like saying if *anyone* hit any shot better than they currently do they'd be a better player. It's not exactly rocket science.

Erm, it was Murray's DTL/inside out forehand that won him Wimbledon OG and possibly the USO.

For the lazy detractors (I'm looking at you here Smoledman) - I posted the day that Murray lost to Ferru @ RG that I felt it was a turning point, and the reason it was a turning point was because whilst Murray had gone out, he'd gone out swinging - and in particular swinging his forehand DTL/IO. For a seasoned Murray watcher, this was something new and significant - Murray going for his forehand DTL - even when he was missing? Unheard of.

It has become a key shot in the development of Murray 2.0 and will continue to improve, alongside his 2nd serve.

Erm, it was Murray's DTL/inside out forehand that won him Wimbledon OG and possibly the USO.

For the lazy detractors (I'm looking at you here Smoledman) - I posted the day that Murray lost to Ferru @ RG that I felt it was a turning point, and the reason it was a turning point was because whilst Murray had gone out, he'd gone out swinging - and in particular swinging his forehand DTL/IO. For a seasoned Murray watcher, this was something new and significant - Murray going for his forehand DTL - even when he was missing? Unheard of.

It has become a key shot in the development of Murray 2.0 and will continue to improve, alongside his 2nd serve.

Click to expand...

I remember you saying that after Murray's loss to Ferrer at the FO and agree in general regarding his improvement of the shot under Lendl but it isn't what bothers me the most about this statement from Gimelstob though as a supposed tennis analyst he should have remarked on the improvement from Murray in that regard this year.

What irks me the most is when media heads like Gimelstob say something which they know is outlandish just to generate controversy and get the attention they seek.

Saying Murray's not an elite player is beyond dumb, he became an elite player back in 2008 when he got into top 5, won Cincy and Madrid, reached USO final etc. what changed with him winning USO this year is that he became a hall of famer.

You can't define elite as 3 best people in the world in their chosen profession.

I remember you saying that after Murray's lost to Ferrer at the FO and agree in general regarding his improvement of the shot under Lendl but it isn't what bothers me the most about this statement from Gimelstob though as a supposed tennis analyst he should remarked on the improvement from Murray in that regard this year.

What irks me the most is when media heads like Gimelstob say something which they know is outlandish just to generate controversy and get the attention they seek.

Saying Murray's not an elite player is beyond dumb, he became an elite player back in 2008 when he got into top 5, won Cincy and Madrid, reached USO final etc. what changed with him winning USO this year is that he became a hall of famer.

You can't define elite as 3 best people in the world in their chosen profession.

Click to expand...

To be honest mate, I wasn't even going to bother to address Gimlestob's statement; wrong as it is - but I thank you for putting it so eloquently. It is a bit of a silly thing for him to say.

Until Murray can hit a forehand down the line? I was watching Tennis Channel's Top matches for 2012. Quote Gimel-snob commenting on the US Open finals match, "Murray needs to learn how to hit the forehand pass down the line in order to be an Elite player." Doesn't Gimel-SNOB understand that Olympic Champions are the elite players? .... Gimel-SNOB has his nose up in the air so much of he time that he cannot look down at Murray's footwork while he plays the game of tennis. His movement and split-step as his opponent strikes the ball is perfect or otherwise....ELITE!!! Murray has the Singles Gold Medal that many other elite players do not.... Gimel-SNOB needs to stick to some pregame notes when commentating or maybe Gimel-SNOB isn't SMART enough to prepare some prematch notes and we have to listen to this garbage!

Click to expand...

Well, Olympic Champs are not necessarily elite players (particularly in tennis), but Murray is among the current elite.

I remember you saying that after Murray's lost to Ferrer at the FO and agree in general regarding his improvement of the shot under Lendl but it isn't what bothers me the most about this statement from Gimelstob though as a supposed tennis analyst he should remarked on the improvement from Murray in that regard this year.

What irks me the most is when media heads like Gimelstob say something which they know is outlandish just to generate controversy and get the attention they seek.

Saying Murray's not an elite player is beyond dumb, he became an elite player back in 2008 when he got into top 5, won Cincy and Madrid, reached USO final etc. what changed with him winning USO this year is that he became a hall of famer.

You can't define elite as 3 best people in the world in their chosen profession.

Click to expand...

I ultimately agree with you regarding Gimelstob, but people are taking his statement a little out of context...

He was comparing Murray with the other top 3 the entire match. He basically was saying what separates Murray from the others who have multiple slams is his forehand, and he's right about that...

Gimelstob's problem is he keeps muttering on and on until his original rational statement sounds foolish. He was doing it over and over again in that match; backing up sensible declarations with eventually more and more vacuous claims -- it was ridiculous...

I found Wilander to be very reasonable and intelligent in his commentary.

I think we all say stupid things at times that we'd rather not have said. Unlike us however, Justin Gimelstob gets the privilege of saying them on national TV.

What he probably meant was that for Murray to get to the next level of greatness that the other slam winners of this era have attained, he has to be able to have the option of going up the line more often with his forehand. The danger with not having nearly as good a pass up the line as crosscourt is that people can lean on the crosscourt pass.

Now the rest of his game is just as strong if not stronger than the current world no.1, so developing that part of his game seems to be prudent.

What I'm actually laughing at most in this thread is the OP who seems to be claiming that if you win OG you must be an elite player. Winning OG proves next to nothing in tennis in terms of being an elite player.

With this said, Gimelstob's statement is stupid in the extreme. Murray is an elite player in any rational persons mind. But I think he may have been comparing him to the other top 3 when he said it, although it is still stupid.

It all depends on how one defines "elite" level. If he means Murray is not among the all time greats yet, he's right. Neither is Delpo despite winning a slam. Still, Murray is one of the best players in today's tennis, everyone can see that.

obviously, murray can hit a dtl fh but it's true that the shot isn't as natural for him as for a federer or djokovic. murray hits his forehand with a closed wrist most of the time, his natural contact point comes with the racket lined up with his forearm. great for cc fh, not so great when you have to lay the wrist back to take it dtl (in an open stance, at least) or inside out. usually you see this type of stroke on guys with eastern/continental forehands due to the natural wrist position, but for some reason it's how murray developed his fh.

of course it's hardly a 'weakness', he's a solid player on all counts, but this is a slight technical issue with his mechanics. like i said, he can do it, i've seen him rip more than a few inside-out fh's, but it's definitely not a shot that 'flows' for him like it does for roger, novak, nadal.

Well, Gimelstob is wrong in his comment about Murray's eliteness but if Murray could hit a down the line forehand as well as anyone else in the top 8 he'd be a much harder player to beat. He may have even picked up a few more scalps of the top players on the big stages too.

Click to expand...

That's how I took it; Murray, for whatever reasons - nerves or lack of confidence - doesn't trust the FH DTL on big points. JG should have said 'to consistently beat the elites, Murray needs to add this to his shot selection.' And he was absolutely right that it was the shot for that situation; Joker wasn't close to covering the line - and on a windy day throwing up a topspin lob was the last shot to try to pull off.

I am not Murray fan but this is rich from a guy like Justin Gimelstob a player that amounted to virtually nothing in tennis. Justin's claim to fame is winning two mixed doubles grand slams with Venus Williams. I don't like it when former low ranked players like Gimelstob slam champions like Andy Murray. Gimelstob has a serious attitude problem, he reminds me of Patrick McEnroe two players who never amounted to nothing on the tennis court yet think they can diss a tennis champion. Gimbelstob doesn't have the credentials to slam Murray.

You know what? Murray won a grand slam and a gold medal whereas Federer, Nadal, nor Djokovic did neither recently. His career is pointing upward, and I think that it's far too soon to say he's not an elite player. Claiming that he is, however, is also premature.

Wilander says the darndest things all the time. Got nothing to do with his slams.

Click to expand...

Oh I agree and he often contradicts himself too. All I am saying is that if I had to choose between the opinions of two former tennis players, I'd probably go with the one who is a former multi-Slam winning champion.

Oh I agree and he often contradicts himself too. All I am saying is that if I had to choose between the opinions of two former tennis players, I'd probably go with the one who is a former multi-Slam winning champion.

Oh I don't know, I've seen him hit many sliced backhand drop shots over the years, many of them quite remarkable. Strangely though, he doesn't seem to employ them as much as he used to do.

Again, he was far more effective with it in the past. Nowadays, it doesn't seem quite the weapon it once was IMO.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but to say that Murray's slice is more "natural" than Roger's is ridiculous.

If you're speaking of his topspin 2HBH, yeah, I'll totally agree that Murray's is a better shot, but sorry in my book that's just as ridiculous as calling Murray a non-elite player just because he doesn't go DTL more.

You know what? Murray won a grand slam and a gold medal whereas Federer, Nadal, nor Djokovic did neither recently. His career is pointing upward, and I think that it's far too soon to say he's not an elite player. Claiming that he is, however, is also premature.

Click to expand...

What are you defining as recently?

As recently as the beginning of 2012 all of those players have won slams, and the Olympics is once every 4 years. Not to mention that Nadal won the 2008 Olympics.

Not sure why people are using the logic that because Gimbelstob wasn't as successful as whoever when he played that his opinion are therefore void. If he's right he's right regardless, and vice versa.

Remember, Toni Nadal was never a top tennis player and he managed to impart enough lessons to nurture Rafael into one of the greatest players of all time. Richard Williams wasn't, either, nor Adolf Kacovsky - two guys who clearly knew something about tennis.

Not sure why people are using the logic that because Gimbelstob wasn't as successful as whoever when he played that his opinion are therefore void. If he's right he's right regardless, and vice versa.

Remember, Toni Nadal was never a top tennis player and he managed to impart enough lessons to nurture Rafael into one of the greatest players of all time. Richard Williams wasn't, either, nor Adolf Kacovsky - two guys who clearly knew something about tennis.

Click to expand...

This is incredibly true, and a point that people overlook entirely too often. However, Gimelstob has proven over and over again that just about every time he opens his mouth, something stupid and baseless comes flying out. These comments don't do anything to reverse that trend.

Why would he want to hit it?? His backhand is one of the best in the world and he can go anywhere with it. Inside-ins are used by players who obviously prefer their forehands and want to keep their opponents honest by not going high-percentage crosscourt (inside-out) all the time.

Down the line from the forehand side of the court is a different matter. He is rather passive when he hits that (infrequently) but it has improved.